New panel for a 206

[AA5Bman]

Okay, rainy day discussion here. I’m in contract to buy a 206. I suspect/hope it will be my forever plane and I’m contemplating just throwing money at it with wild abandon. It’s the plane I’ve wanted literally ever since childhood.

This particular one has nothing in the panel that is worth saving, except perhaps for a single KX155 and associated VOR head, and a JPI700 w/FF.

I don’t fly IFR that much, but I see basic RNAV IFR, auto pilot, and 2x Coms as essential safety equipment (or at least that’s how I’m justifying it), so I’m planning to do a pretty significant panel and autopilot upgrade. Fwiw, I’m agnostic on VORs at this point. I made sure to put one in on the last panel upgrade I did, and hardly - actually never - use it.

There are two buildouts I’m considering. One that will absolutely break the bank and one that I see as merely expensive. I’m curious if you all see other obvious buildouts or ways to save money or get better value.

Option 1 - full panel replacement:
G3X + all engine stuff (computer and sensors for full instrument replacement)
GNX375 - NAV + TX
GTR205 - COM
G5 - required for Autopilot
Possible GNC215 or keep existing KX155
GFC500
GMA345 audio panel

Option 2 - “lower” budget panel upgrade
2x G5s - remove vacuum system, provide head unit for autopilot, and provide display for Nav
GNX375 - Nav+TX
GTR205 - Com
Possible GNC215 or keep KX155.
GFC500
GMA345
- in this buildout would seriously consider upgrading JPI700 to 730.

Here are some thoughts:
- the GFC500 seems like serious overkill for my flying. But are there any 2-axis autopilots that are even worth considering as alternatives? I’ve only ever owned planes with single-axis autopilots and even that would be nice. But if it’s $20k for a knock-off wing leveler and $25k for a GFC, I’m just going to do the full boat GFC500.

- The two buildouts above will be dramatically different in price, and a huge part of the difference is the G3X and Garmin engine monitoring stuff which is way expensive. My primary interest in that buildout, though, is to be able to remove all the original instrumentation so I can be pretty sure I won’t have to chase gremlins later which is so annoying. Is it worth it?

Would love to hear your general thoughts, and if you see any opportunities or options I’m missing. Thanks!

 

[robin ardoin]

Get the GFC500, you won’t regret it. Would I pull a perfectly functioning stec 55x to put one in? Probably not, but when my KAP 140 with altitude select in the 182 went T.U., it was a no brainer. Hopefully , I will be taking delivery of a 210N soon that has a panel like yours (has a GNS450W navigator) and giving up a GTN650/Flightstream 510/GTX345/GI275 x2/GFC500/JPI830. I will definitely be upgrading panel and will be going Garmin with the GFC500 with the yaw damper option. Consider a GTN750Txi while you are in the ‘wild abandon’ mood.

 

[SebIp]

We are putting a gfc500 into a Cherokee. I think after all the options we consider it was easier and cheapest actually to get panel and AP together from the same garmin dealer shop than anywhere else we found.

 

[MountainDude]

I think you should consider Dynon/Avidyne combo. That is what I would install if I were re-doing my panel.

 

[AA5Bman]

I think you should consider Dynon/Avidyne combo. That is what I would install if I were re-doing my panel.

Yeah - tell me why? Honest question. Is it waaay less expensive? I think to bother going non-Garmin it’d have to be super compelling financially, and I doubt it is.

 

[aggiepack]

Dynon is way less expensive, easier to install and probably the better system. The problem here is the a/p. Dynon A/P certification process is a mess. 206 seems not even to be on their list. The PA28 community is waiting for five years now. Trio and Aerocruz do not cover 206‘s as well, so the GFC500 seems to be a natural choice. GFC500 plays only with Garmin gadgets, so no Avidyne navigator.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

GFC500 plays only with Garmin gadgets, so no Avidyne navigator.

That’s not true.

And Gig’em! Game is on in 12 minutes!

 

[dbahn]

Too bad I just sold mine, owned for 40 years and I LOVED it. There was plenty of panel space, so I kept the vacuum back up along with most of the original instruments.

http://pics.woodenpropeller.com/images/206panel cr.jpg

 

[Walboy]

Get the GFC500, you won’t regret it.

^ This 100%

 

[asicer]

A set of GI275 (AI, HSI, EIS, MFD/CDI) is the obvious middle ground.

Also, you might to consider a a GTN Xi as your GPS navigator. The GFC500 cannot do VPTH to vertical waypoints with the GNX375 like a GTN can.

And if everything else is going to have nice color display, the gas plasma of the KX155 is going to look terribly out of place.

 

[AA5Bman]

A set of GI275 (AI, HSI, EIS, MFD/CDI) is the obvious middle ground.

Also, you might to consider a a GTN Xi as your GPS navigator. The GFC500 cannot do VPTH to vertical waypoints with the GNX375 like a GTN can.

And if everything else is going to have nice color display, the gas plasma of the KX155 is going to look terribly out of place.

Hah, yeah… I have had that thought. But is it worth $5k to replace it with a GNC255 just for looks…? That’s a rhetorical question.

So… one of the reasons I think the GFC500 is overkill, even though I don’t think there’s a viable alternative, is that I really can’t see myself using all the fancy features. Like, I don’t even know what VPTH is - can you explain?

PS - I think a four pack of GI275s would be more expensive than the G3X and potentially less functional. I had a GI275 in my last plane, in retrospect, the G5 is probably fine.

 

[asicer]

I don’t even know what VPTH is - can you explain?

In short, a GTN/GFC pair can plan all of TOD points and then fly the stepdowns. The obvious application is doing all the vertical work on a non-precision approach or on the way to the FAF of a precision approach. But even going VFR, it's still useful say for example if you have to step your way up or down around a Bravo shelf since you can set altitudes at each waypoint on your flightplan.

PS - I think a four pack of GI275s would be more expensive than the G3X and potentially less functional. I had a GI275 in my last plane, in retrospect, the G5 is probably fine.

Yeah, 2 or 3 would probably make more sense since you already have the JPI upgradeable to a 730. Also, a G5 can't do synthetic vision.

 

[MountainDude]

Yeah - tell me why? Honest question. Is it waaay less expensive? I think to bother going non-Garmin it’d have to be super compelling financially, and I doubt it is.

- It should be about $10K less. But to me there are other advantages beyond that. The annual subscriptions are free on Dynon, vs a lot of money on Garmin. The IFD has an app that mirrors its screen on an ipad - a fantastic user interface.
- Dynon may have better customer support and reliability - but please do your own research.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Garmin has their own dynamic charts in addition to the standard government ones. Once you use them you will never go back.

The GFC 500 has auto trim servo, a must have IMHO, I don’t think the others do, I think it’s manual or they interface with existing electric trim.
Yaw damper is a requirement for some airframes like V tails, but not necessary for most.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Ooooh... Not much more fun than building a panel with someone else's money!

Okay, rainy day discussion here. I’m in contract to buy a 206. I suspect/hope it will be my forever plane and I’m contemplating just throwing money at it with wild abandon. It’s the plane I’ve wanted literally ever since childhood.

Congratulations! You're living the dream.

This particular one has nothing in the panel that is worth saving, except perhaps for a single KX155 and associated VOR head, and a JPI700 w/FF.

So like you said, probably nothing worth saving. If you decide to keep the KX155, you need to find someone to refurbish it - Mainly, to remove and replace each and every electrolytic capacitor - Or you will soon be replacing it after those capacitors start leaking their acid and etch the circuit boards causing the radio to fail. I wouldn't trust the display on a JPI 700 to last much longer either.

I don’t fly IFR that much, but I see basic RNAV IFR, auto pilot, and 2x Coms as essential safety equipment (or at least that’s how I’m justifying it), so I’m planning to do a pretty significant panel and autopilot upgrade.

Good plan. Even if you don't fly IFR that much, the 206 is a traveling airplane and should have a good IFR panel. I always think it's kinda silly to see airplanes of that caliber with VFR-only panels on the market. You won't save much by not equipping it well, and it'll probably cost you later.

Fwiw, I’m agnostic on VORs at this point. I made sure to put one in on the last panel upgrade I did, and hardly - actually never - use it.

I've been thinking the same way, even though I fly IFR all the time. Next avionics upgrade is likely to involve removing the #2 KX165 Nav/Com in favor of a GTX 355 GPS/Com.

Option 1 - full panel replacement:
G3X + all engine stuff (computer and sensors for full instrument replacement)
GNX375 - NAV + TX
GTR205 - COM
G5 - required for Autopilot
Possible GNC215 or keep existing KX155
GFC500
GMA345 audio panel

Option 2 - “lower” budget panel upgrade
2x G5s - remove vacuum system, provide head unit for autopilot, and provide display for Nav
GNX375 - Nav+TX
GTR205 - Com
Possible GNC215 or keep KX155.
GFC500
GMA345
- in this buildout would seriously consider upgrading JPI700 to 730.

OK, rearranging this a bit. In either case, it looks like you're planning on the following:
GNX 375 GPS+Txp. Nice unit, gets you two necessary things that need to work together anyway in a single box. Only drawback is that the screen is on the small side - Much less of an issue if you go with option 1, because the G3X has a big screen. Presumably you'll be carrying an iPad as well so you'll have more than one. However, to really get a lot more screen real estate than the 375, you're looking at a GTN 750 + GTX 345 which is way more expensive. So, I like this choice, especially paired with the G3X.
GTR205 and GNC215: Two coms, one nav - Like I said, something I'm likely to do soon. Do take note of the 155 rebuild caveat above, though, and the fact that if the display goes on the KX155, the LED replacement display costs $4600 last I checked. Between that and Honeywell's unfortunate craptacular support, I'm trying to get rid of everything Bendix/King as fast as I can. It was great in its day, but now it is old and really expensive to keep up.
GFC500 - Fantastic, more on this below.
GMA345 audio panel: I'm guessing maybe you never made it off of Garmin's web site in your building process. However, when it comes to audio panels, unless you need something Garmin-specific like a remote audio panel or the Telligence voice command system (which I really like), it's well worth looking at the PS Engineering panels, especially the PMA450B. PS Engineering only does one thing (audio panels) and they do it better than anyone else including Garmin. Given that neither of your panel options includes a GTN or any of the other things that would require a Garmin audio panel, it's worthwhile to at least take a look at PS Engineering.

Now, to the differences:
All out version:
G3X+EIS and G5: First of all, you say "G5 - required for autopilot" but it's not. The GFC500 has three options to drive it: G5, GI275, or G3X Touch. That said, going to my comments about a 206 deserving an IFR panel, the G5 makes a fine backup. Another thing you get out of this is miscompare monitoring between the G5 and G3X, and Garmin is the only company that has this capability in the GA market. To me, it's a compelling safety feature. I like the idea of the Garmin EIS because you can get all of your information in the same data logfile, but I'm definitely in a small minority that cares about such things.

2x G5s and JPI730: Still good, but it requires you to retain (and maintain!) your existing steam gauges. FWIW, if you use GI275s instead of G5s, they're a bit more expensive but they've got newer CPUs, much higher resolution screens, and do not require the steam gauges to remain as backups even though most people do. If you were ever in a pinch and had an inop ASI or something you could fly home legally with just the GI275s, while you'd be grounded with G5s. The JPI730 is a good idea *if* all of your wiring and sensors are in good shape. Might be worth having the avionics shop look at that before you make the final decision.

Here are some thoughts:
- the GFC500 seems like serious overkill for my flying. But are there any 2-axis autopilots that are even worth considering as alternatives? I’ve only ever owned planes with single-axis autopilots and even that would be nice. But if it’s $20k for a knock-off wing leveler and $25k for a GFC, I’m just going to do the full boat GFC500.

I don't think so. The GFC500 is a really excellent autopilot, far beyond what was available in GA prior to its introduction. It's in high demand and I expect it will remain that way for a long time to come. It works really well with the other equipment you mentioned.

I would do the three-servo version (Pitch, roll, and pitch trim). Cessnas are pretty tame in the yaw axis so the yaw damper isn't really necessary unless you want to go all out or if you have frequent backseat pax who get motion sickness and fly with you in turbulence.

- The two buildouts above will be dramatically different in price, and a huge part of the difference is the G3X and Garmin engine monitoring stuff which is way expensive. My primary interest in that buildout, though, is to be able to remove all the original instrumentation so I can be pretty sure I won’t have to chase gremlins later which is so annoying. Is it worth it?

Only you can really answer that, but it is nice to not have to chase gremlins.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In short, a GTN/GFC pair can plan all of TOD points and then fly the stepdowns. The obvious application is doing all the vertical work on a non-precision approach or on the way to the FAF of a precision approach. But even going VFR, it's still useful say for example if you have to step your way up or down around a Bravo shelf since you can set altitudes at each waypoint on your flightplan.

I do not think it does what it sounds to me like you're saying here. A GTN does let you put in an altitude at any/every waypoint (and easily add along-track offset waypoints for that purpose too, like "Cross 10 miles east of Farmington at and maintain 4,000"), and it obviously loads approaches. However, there are limitations: There are no VNAV climbs (which would be useful along the Chicago lakeshore), and unless I'm mistaken you only get one descent at a time - So you're holding at one altitude, you have an upcoming waypoint with a lower altitude and you bug that altitude and enable VNAV and it will automatically initiate the descent and then level at the new altitude.

However, it does not, even if you program multiple altitudes in your flight plan, initiate a descent, intercept a second altitude, initiate another descent, intercept another altitude all on its own. Each time, after intercepting a new altitude, you need to bug the next altitude and hit VNAV again.

Yeah, 2 or 3 would probably make more sense since you already have the JPI upgradeable to a 730. Also, a G5 can't do synthetic vision.

And while synthetic vision on a small display sounds dumb, it's worth it if only to get the flight path marker.

Garmin has their own dynamic charts in addition to the standard government ones. Once you use them you will never go back.

Wait, what? How do I get them and what equipment do I need to use them? Are you talking enroutes, approach plates, or... ?

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Garmin Flitecharts, what they use with Pilot, G3X, etc, they are dynamic so detail can be changed as you zoom in/out and filtered, like not showing seabases for example.

 

[aggiepack]

For those, who claim that Avidydne IFD navigators can be legally paired in a certified aircraft with the Garmin GFC500 A/P or the Garmin G3X EFIS, please explain your path. Nor the GFC500 neither the G3X are currently included in the Avidyne IM.

IFD5XX/4XX Compatible Equipment

pilotsupport.avidyne.com

Garmin is not mentioning Avidyne products for an obvious reason in their materials.
Sure, you can always try a field approval argueing that the IFD Series is a slide-in replacement for the GNS Series. Good luck with that.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

For those, who claim that Avidydne IFD navigators can be legally paired in a certified aircraft with the Garmin GFC500 A/P or the Garmin G3X EFIS, please explain your path. Nor the GFC500 neither the G3X are currently included in the Avidyne IM.

IFD5XX/4XX Compatible Equipment

pilotsupport.avidyne.com

Garmin is not mentioning Avidyne products for an obvious reason in their materials.
Sure, you can always try a field approval argueing that the IFD Series is a slide-in replacement for the GNS Series. Good luck with that.

Of course Garmin isn’t going to approve a competitor’s equipment, that’s up to Avidyne to show they work with Garmin, I assume they have a STC.

 

[Datadriver]

Okay, rainy day discussion here. I’m in contract to buy a 206. I suspect/hope it will be my forever plane and I’m contemplating just throwing money at it with wild abandon. It’s the plane I’ve wanted literally ever since childhood.

This particular one has nothing in the panel that is worth saving, except perhaps for a single KX155 and associated VOR head, and a JPI700 w/FF.

I don’t fly IFR that much, but I see basic RNAV IFR, auto pilot, and 2x Coms as essential safety equipment (or at least that’s how I’m justifying it), so I’m planning to do a pretty significant panel and autopilot upgrade. Fwiw, I’m agnostic on VORs at this point. I made sure to put one in on the last panel upgrade I did, and hardly - actually never - use it.

There are two buildouts I’m considering. One that will absolutely break the bank and one that I see as merely expensive. I’m curious if you all see other obvious buildouts or ways to save money or get better value.

Option 1 - full panel replacement:
G3X + all engine stuff (computer and sensors for full instrument replacement)
GNX375 - NAV + TX
GTR205 - COM
G5 - required for Autopilot
Possible GNC215 or keep existing KX155
GFC500
GMA345 audio panel

Option 2 - “lower” budget panel upgrade
2x G5s - remove vacuum system, provide head unit for autopilot, and provide display for Nav
GNX375 - Nav+TX
GTR205 - Com
Possible GNC215 or keep KX155.
GFC500
GMA345
- in this buildout would seriously consider upgrading JPI700 to 730.

Here are some thoughts:
- the GFC500 seems like serious overkill for my flying. But are there any 2-axis autopilots that are even worth considering as alternatives? I’ve only ever owned planes with single-axis autopilots and even that would be nice. But if it’s $20k for a knock-off wing leveler and $25k for a GFC, I’m just going to do the full boat GFC500.

- The two buildouts above will be dramatically different in price, and a huge part of the difference is the G3X and Garmin engine monitoring stuff which is way expensive. My primary interest in that buildout, though, is to be able to remove all the original instrumentation so I can be pretty sure I won’t have to chase gremlins later which is so annoying. Is it worth it?

Would love to hear your general thoughts, and if you see any opportunities or options I’m missing. Thanks!

As someone who REALLY wanted to go Dynon for my Piper Arrow, I wound up going Garmin just for the GFC500 autopilot. Zero regrets, it is fantastic.

 

[aggiepack]

Of course Garmin isn’t going to approve a competitor’s equipment, that’s up to Avidyne to show they work with Garmin, I assume they have a STC.

Yes, there is an Avidyne STC, amd yes, it includes a garden variety of several third party a/p and EFIS systems. Feel free to direct me to the relevant page that includes the GFC500 and / or the G3X.

 

[Jacob Kinsey]

We did a install in a 206 earlier this year. The customer wanted G3x 10" PFD, GI275 standby, GFC500 autopilot 3 servo (roll, pitch, and trim), GTN650xi, Garmin EIS W/Cies senders displayed on PFD, GSB15, Mid-Continent CH93 clock, Smart Glide switch, new panels. We were able to use some existing equipment to help control the installation cost. He did add some additional items during the installation like replacing all the non-pullable circuit breakers, install Bose crew jacks, pull vacuum, replace scat hoses, install Ipad mount, re-screen pilot switch panel.

If you are planning the upgrade for this year make sure to order the equipment before mid December, Garmin is taking a 3.5% increase on all parts and equipment before the new year. Down time for the aircraft was about two and a half months.

 

[AA5Bman]

@flyingcheesehead thanks for your post - you have expressed many of my thoughts any reasoning in this situation.

A couple comments:

- To go bigger screen real estate than the GNX375, not only so you have to spend about $5k more on a 650, or more on a 750, but you have to also spent another $5k on a GTX345 transponder. That’s the biggest difference IMO. With quite limited IFR flying - most of which is driven, visually, by my iPad anyway - I figure those are dollars worth saving.

- I mentioned the G5 in the G3X buildout because I believe it is necessary. If not to drive the autopilot I believe it is a required backup to the G3X. Could be a GI275, too, but just more money.

- Good call on the PS Engineering audio panel. That said, if the GMA345 keeps it in the family, I might still go that route as it’s the least expensive equipment item on the whole list, by far.

- I hear you on the KX155s. I’m also seriously considering getting rid of them and just going with two lower-cost Com-only units (GTR205) and getting ride of VORs altogether. I think that might eliminate an extra antenna and some weight, too, which - for as much as I use VORs anymore - might actually be better.

- Still lost on whether the added autopilot functionality of having a GTN-series navigator makes any sort of meaningful difference. The current plane is to have three servos: pitch, roll, and pitch trim. The problem with going to a GTN series, again, as noted above, is you have to spend another $5k on a standalone transponder, too, so the difference is more than $10k to step up.

Fwiw, I have not seriously considered Avidyne or Dynon. I think they are probably great units, but they still feel like taking on added risk and downside on sale and support, for a savings that’s probably not quite worth it.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

For those, who claim that Avidydne IFD navigators can be legally paired in a certified aircraft with the Garmin GFC500 A/P or the Garmin G3X EFIS, please explain your path. Nor the GFC500 neither the G3X are currently included in the Avidyne IM.

My initial comment was to yours that Garmin AP does not “play” with the Avidyne GPS NAVCOM. I took the word “play” to mean that it would not pair and work.

As for legality, I don’t have the expertise to comment on that, but I have seen installations in the wild where IFD540/440 and GFC500s are in operation.

All that being said, there used to be some approaches where the ground tracks were offset to one side, but I think that was resolved.

Caveat emptor I think is what we need to say here.

The Aggie game sucked last night…

 

[MooneyDriver78]

GTN Xi gives you smart glide, VNAV, etc

 

[aggiepack]

My initial comment was to yours that Garmin AP does not “play” with the Avidyne GPS NAVCOM. I took the word “play” to mean that it would not pair and work.

As for legality, I don’t have the expertise to comment on that, but I have seen installations in the wild where IFD540/440 and GFC500s are in operation.

All that being said, there used to be some approaches where the ground tracks were offset to one side, but I think that was resolved.

Caveat emptor I think is what we need to say here.

Will it work? - yes, YMMY depending on the software version and settings
Are those combos seen in certified aircrafts in bright daylight? - yes
Are the owners happy with the performance? - usually yes
Is it legal? - at least very doubtful. In my opinion the answer is as of today a resounding no. Even Avidyne has become very reluctant with those statements. Some may have noticed that Avidyne even is no longer promoting the slide-in replacement as an owner maintenance item. The detailed step-by-sep instructions including the sample for the log book entry seem to have vanished from the website.

 

[asicer]

However, it does not, even if you program multiple altitudes in your flight plan, initiate a descent, intercept a second altitude, initiate another descent, intercept another altitude all on its own. Each time, after intercepting a new altitude, you need to bug the next altitude and hit VNAV again.

Hm, you only need to bug the final altitude and then hit VNV only once in the G1000NXi. I had thought the GTN Xi was the same way.

I’m also seriously considering getting rid of them and just going with two lower-cost Com-only units (GTR205) and getting ride of VORs altogether. I think that might eliminate an extra antenna and some weight, too, which - for as much as I use VORs anymore - might actually be better.

I would keep the VOR antennae (assuming they're still serviceable) and talk to your avionics shop about wiring the GTR205's as GTN215's. They're pin compatible and that way if you (or some future owner) decides later that they want a NAV/COM then it's just a slide-in + signature.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Hm, you only need to bug the final altitude and then hit VNV only once in the G1000NXi. I had thought the GTN Xi was the same way.

It does., @flyingcheesehead is mistaken. You do have to bug the final altitude, sometimes I forget that. Also it won’t work if your descent requires you to exceed your preferred descent rate and you must be navigating via GPS.
There’s no VNAV climb capability, I think VNAVs were designed with STARs in mind.

 

[AA5Bman]

This whole vertical autopilot functionality is pretty confusing to me, partly because I’ve never flown or owned a plane with a 2-axis autopilot. I think I need to keep in mind how rarely I fly IFR, which is literally a few times a year.

Here are some functions that I would like to have in a 2-axis autopilot:
- climb/descend at a set speed to a set altitude and capture OR
- climb/descend at a set rate to a set altitude and capture
- hold and trim to a set altitude.
- track a localizer or glide path down a precision approach (a guess it would be track down a glide path for an LPV approach assuming I ditch the VORs).

That’s about it. All the vertical tracking of step downs is nice, but seems a like it’s getting pretty far from what I need. Would the GNX375 do the above?

 

[asicer]

Would the GNX375 do the above?

Yes.

track a localizer or glide path down a precision approach (a guess it would be track down a glide path for an LPV approach assuming I ditch the VORs).

The GNX375 (along with all Garmin GPS newer than the GTN) can provide a VFR glide path and the GFC can follow that as well.

 

[iamtheari]

I have designed panels for two planes and, in each of them, might do things differently if I started over knowing what I know now. One plane is an experimental with two seats, the other is a certified plane with 6 seats and no G3X Touch approval. I fly long distances, sometimes IFR, and always single-pilot. I hate vacuum pumps, everything from how they can die on the first flight to how hard they are to replace because the bolts are in impossible places. Those are the facts that drove most of my decisions in both panels.

Here are things that I usually don't see people discuss in these threads, but urge everyone to consider in their new panels:

1. Make a deliberate choice of audio panel. I went with the PMA450B in the six-seat plane because it gives me a physical button to quickly change between isolation modes. I really wanted to like the Garmin options, including the remote one, but when five people are gabbing during a busy approach it's important to me to have a button immediately at hand. Even just flying VFR into a Class D airport is a valid reason to have quick access to the isolation modes. The PMA450B also has dual bluetooth inputs so you can listen to an audiobook while your passengers rock out to old school Duran Duran. In the two-seater, I don't need any of that and the remote audio panel is perfect.

2. Get the EIS option. Having more instrumentation and data logging on your engine is always a good thing, but having the EIS on your PFD means that your engine gauges and warning lights will all be part of your primary instrument scan if you're flying on instruments or at least right next to the altimeter when you're VFR, increasing the likelihood that you'll catch a problem before it becomes an emergency. I started with the EIS shown on the copilot-side G3X Touch display in my two-seater but moved it to the PFD. I already loved engine monitors but the EIS-on-PFD concept is another order of magnitude better than round dials.

3. Put the things you want close to you. My two-seater has a dual 10" G3X Touch system and a GTN 650 Xi between the main displays. I wish I had a 750 instead of the 650 and the second 10" screen, because it would be closer and thus more useful as an MFD. I almost never look at the copilot side display, and I always silently curse the 650 for thinking its map display is useful enough to be the default view after I adjust the flight plan.

4. Consider avionics that you can control from the PFD. You won't know how nice it is to remote-tune a comm radio until you experience it. But after I experienced it, I had to have it, so the six-seat plane got a GTN 650 Xi as comm #2 specifically because it can be remote-tuned. In the two-seater, I exclusively tune the radios from the PFD, usually from the waypoint information page.

5. Even if you only fly VFR, there are many benefits to having a good glass cockpit with a two-axis autopilot, VNAV, etc.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

- To go bigger screen real estate than the GNX375, not only so you have to spend about $5k more on a 650, or more on a 750, but you have to also spent another $5k on a GTX345 transponder. That’s the biggest difference IMO. With quite limited IFR flying - most of which is driven, visually, by my iPad anyway - I figure those are dollars worth saving.

Yes. It's quite a difference in cost. The 650 is definitely not worth it unless you need the nav radio, IIRC the 650 is only 0.55" taller than the 375. The 750 is obviously MUCH taller.

The one thing that might still be worthwhile even with limited IFR flying is the Smart Glide that the GTN Xi series provides. Would sure be nice in an engine failure scenario.

- I mentioned the G5 in the G3X buildout because I believe it is necessary. If not to drive the autopilot I believe it is a required backup to the G3X. Could be a GI275, too, but just more money.

Oh OK, I was just confused by your "necessary for autopilot" comment on it.

- I hear you on the KX155s. I’m also seriously considering getting rid of them and just going with two lower-cost Com-only units (GTR205) and getting ride of VORs altogether. I think that might eliminate an extra antenna and some weight, too, which - for as much as I use VORs anymore - might actually be better.

I doubt you'll get much weight savings from removing all the VORs. NDB, however... Well, my NDB antenna weighed something like 10 pounds all by itself.

- Still lost on whether the added autopilot functionality of having a GTN-series navigator makes any sort of meaningful difference. The current plane is to have three servos: pitch, roll, and pitch trim. The problem with going to a GTN series, again, as noted above, is you have to spend another $5k on a standalone transponder, too, so the difference is more than $10k to step up.

For your uses, the Smart Glide is a far more compelling difference than VNAV. In roughly 2500 hours of piston GA time, I think I've been assigned a STAR once and a crossing restriction maybe twice. That certainly depends on where you fly - I think all of the above were going into the Houston area.

It does., @flyingcheesehead is mistaken.

Huh... Interesting. I guess I have flown the G1000NXi but I don't think I ever flew a non-precision dive-and-drive style approach with it.

You do have to bug the final altitude, sometimes I forget that.

Yes. There's three things you've gotta do for VNAV to work: 1) Program your altitude(s) into the flight plan, 2) Hit the VNAV button, 3) Bug the altitude you're cleared to. If any one of the three is missing, it won't work, and it doesn't tell you why so there's confusion and/or frustration with it from new users.

There’s no VNAV climb capability, I think VNAVs were designed with STARs in mind.

STARs and crossing restrictions... When I first heard they were adding VNAV to the GTNs and the GFC was coming out with it, I thought I'd be able to program the whole Chicago lakeshore route into it. Oh well.

This whole vertical autopilot functionality is pretty confusing to me, partly because I’ve never flown or owned a plane with a 2-axis autopilot. I think I need to keep in mind how rarely I fly IFR, which is literally a few times a year.

Here are some functions that I would like to have in a 2-axis autopilot:
- climb/descend at a set speed to a set altitude and capture OR
- climb/descend at a set rate to a set altitude and capture
- hold and trim to a set altitude.
- track a localizer or glide path down a precision approach (a guess it would be track down a glide path for an LPV approach assuming I ditch the VORs).

That’s about it. All the vertical tracking of step downs is nice, but seems a like it’s getting pretty far from what I need. Would the GNX375 do the above?

Yes. Really, none of those have much to do with your navigator except for the approach glidepath.

Generally, you'll climb in IAS/FLC mode and capture the bugged altitude whereupon it'll switch to ALT (hold) mode, then descend in VS mode and capture the bugged altitude, hit APR when you're cleared for the approach and it'll go into GS/GP mode when you intercept. The currently operating mode for both pitch and roll will be in green on your displays, the armed mode(s) will be in white.

The GNX375 (along with all Garmin GPS newer than the GTN) can provide a VFR glide path and the GFC can follow that as well.

This is nice to have (and use) even when you're hand flying, for an easy reference to a 3-degree glidepath.

I have designed panels for two planes and, in each of them, might do things differently if I started over knowing what I know now. One plane is an experimental with two seats, the other is a certified plane with 6 seats and no G3X Touch approval. I fly long distances, sometimes IFR, and always single-pilot. I hate vacuum pumps, everything from how they can die on the first flight to how hard they are to replace because the bolts are in impossible places. Those are the facts that drove most of my decisions in both panels.

Nothing to say about this particular block of text, just wanted to say this was an excellent post, @iamtheari.

1. Make a deliberate choice of audio panel. I went with the PMA450B in the six-seat plane because it gives me a physical button to quickly change between isolation modes. I really wanted to like the Garmin options, including the remote one, but when five people are gabbing during a busy approach it's important to me to have a button immediately at hand.

A lot of people think it'll be cool to have everything on one screen... But if you can get a button, always get the button, regardless of what it is. The only reason to go fully remote mount, whether it's for radios, audio panel, or transponder, is if you simply don't have the panel space to accommodate the units in the panel.

And I'm not knocking touchscreens - It's just that this isolation example is a good one, and it's going to be a MINIMUM of two touches to get it done with the remote-mount, instead of having one button.

In addition, you'll have more data fields available on the screen if that space doesn't have to be taken up by buttons for controlling your remote LRUs. Personally, I like having the most information possible at a glance (visible with zero button pushes). If I'd opted for the remote audio panel I'd have only four data fields instead of eight.

This is also a good reason to practice things with your new gear after you get it. My Garmin GMA 350c confused me at first, because it has PILOT, COPLT, and PASS buttons as opposed to PILOT and CREW. Took me a bit to figure out that whoever has a light above them is part of the intercom loop, and I want the PILOT light to be *off* if I want to isolate myself, which is kind of backwards from how most audio panels work.

4. Consider avionics that you can control from the PFD. You won't know how nice it is to remote-tune a comm radio until you experience it. But after I experienced it, I had to have it, so the six-seat plane got a GTN 650 Xi as comm #2 specifically because it can be remote-tuned. In the two-seater, I exclusively tune the radios from the PFD, usually from the waypoint information page.

What is it that's better about remote tuning from the PFD as opposed to the radio? Just being able to tune from the waypoint info page?

I ask this as someone with a voice controllable (thanks to the GMA350c) GTN, so my waypoint info page is already on the GTN and I could theoretically tune it there, though I never do that because of the button pushes to get to the info page - I just hit the PTC button on the yoke and say "Tune destination tower" or whatever. But since my #2 radio is an old King and that's where I listen to the ATIS, I just look it up on ForeFlight and tune it manually. I think I'd look it up on ForeFlight anyway because getting to the waypoint info frequency page on the GTN is a three-push affair and I generally have only zero or one touches on the iPad plus some twisting on the radio. The G3X Touch and a remote tunable #2 radio, I can see being helpful.

5. Even if you only fly VFR, there are many benefits to having a good glass cockpit with a two-axis autopilot, VNAV, etc.

Absolutely. Being a pilot is all about making good decisions. The more and better the information you have to make those decisions, the better decisions you can make. And holding heading/altitude in cruise for long periods is fatiguing regardless of what flight rules you're operating under.

 

[iamtheari]

In addition, you'll have more data fields available on the screen if that space doesn't have to be taken up by buttons for controlling your remote LRUs. Personally, I like having the most information possible at a glance (visible with zero button pushes). If I'd opted for the remote audio panel I'd have only four data fields instead of eight.

Very valid point. I have a GTX 345 and they configured my GTN 750 Xi to control it, which is redundant and a little annoying because the transponder controls eat up a couple of always-visible data fields from the GTN. There are trade-offs to be had, and I don't think there is a single right answer. I will say that the TXi, 750, and 650 together show enough things that I couldn't think of what I should put on the data field page of the GI 275, whereas the G3X Touch PFD with transponder, intercom, and two comm radio control boxes on it only had room for one more data field across the top.

What is it that's better about remote tuning from the PFD as opposed to the radio? Just being able to tune from the waypoint info page?

Tuning both radios from the same spot is really nice. You would think it is a small mental burden to tune two radios in different ways, until you ease your mind of that burden. I can send frequencies from the waypoint info page on the PFD to both radios. I bring the waypoint info page up fairly often to check ADS-B weather, so it's not out of the way to look up the frequencies there. From there, it only takes a few taps on the screen to load Approach on Comm #1, Tower on Comm #1 standby, ATIS on Comm #2, and Ground on Comm #2 standby. In my RV-14, I put buttons on the stick for comm frequency flip-flop and audio panel radio flip-flop, so I can cycle through all four preloaded frequencies with my thumb. It's not as cool as choosing, locking, and firing a missile with a real HOTAS, but it helps keep my eyes forward and stick and rudder focused on surviving a sporty approach and landing in my experimental taildragger.

I ask this as someone with a voice controllable (thanks to the GMA350c) GTN, so my waypoint info page is already on the GTN and I could theoretically tune it there, though I never do that because of the button pushes to get to the info page - I just hit the PTC button on the yoke and say "Tune destination tower" or whatever. But since my #2 radio is an old King and that's where I listen to the ATIS, I just look it up on ForeFlight and tune it manually. I think I'd look it up on ForeFlight anyway because getting to the waypoint info frequency page on the GTN is a three-push affair and I generally have only zero or one touches on the iPad plus some twisting on the radio. The G3X Touch and a remote tunable #2 radio, I can see being helpful.

My experience in the RV-14 was that the remote tunable comm #2 was helpful enough to justify springing for a GTN 650 Xi in the other plane mostly because it was the lowest-cost way to get a comm #2 that the TXi could remote-tune.

Absolutely. Being a pilot is all about making good decisions. The more and better the information you have to make those decisions, the better decisions you can make. And holding heading/altitude in cruise for long periods is fatiguing regardless of what flight rules you're operating under.

Single-pilot operations, even under VFR, put a lot on the pilot's shoulders. I love a two-axis autopilot because it frees up my eyes, hands, and brain for a few seconds to safely perform other tasks. I do not at all miss dividing my attention between hand-flying the plane and trying to help a passenger with the seat belt, digging out the oxygen system, cross-threading the lid on the portajohn, etc. All of my panel-design decisions started from the question of how to make my life easier as a single pilot.

OP and others, feel free to run scenarios by me for how I handle them in these two panels. I'm certainly not an expert on either of them, but I have pet peeves with both systems that might help inform your decision. (Example: The G3X Touch has a checklist page that the TXi lacks, while the GTN 750 has a checklist page but it's not as good as the G3X Touch.)

 

[iamtheari]

Option 1 - full panel replacement:
G3X + all engine stuff (computer and sensors for full instrument replacement)
GNX375 - NAV + TX
GTR205 - COM
G5 - required for Autopilot
Possible GNC215 or keep existing KX155
GFC500
GMA345 audio panel

Option 2 - “lower” budget panel upgrade
2x G5s - remove vacuum system, provide head unit for autopilot, and provide display for Nav
GNX375 - Nav+TX
GTR205 - Com
Possible GNC215 or keep KX155.
GFC500
GMA345
- in this buildout would seriously consider upgrading JPI700 to 730.

Just to reply to the OP's actual options:

Option 1: I'd rather have just the GNC 215 than a GTR 205 + KX155. Better yet, a GNC 215 + GTR 205. To save money and lose only VOR and ILS, just get a GTR 205 and skip the nav radio altogether. Only you can decide if the risk of a GPS outage in IMC is worth the cost of the nav radio. There are other threads debating this if you want to hear others' opinions on the subject.

Option 2: This panel is workable but ruins your whole plan of throwing money at the airplane with reckless abandon. You actually lose a lot by going to the dual G5 instead of G3X Touch, including a usable size screen to look at weather information. If you're going to go with only a mini-PFD, consider two or three GI 275s instead. They do a lot more than the G5: synthetic vision and HSI map come to mind.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Very valid point. I have a GTX 345 and they configured my GTN 750 Xi to control it, which is redundant and a little annoying because the transponder controls eat up a couple of always-visible data fields from the GTN.

I also have a GTN 750/GTX 345 combo, and I also have the Txp controls on the GTN. IIRC, I specifically asked them NOT to do that because I wanted the last two data fields, but the shop told me that there was something in the STC approved install instructions that required them to do it that way. Same thing with disabling the bluetooth on the GTX345 because I have a FlightStream 510.

OP and others, feel free to run scenarios by me for how I handle them in these two panels. I'm certainly not an expert on either of them, but I have pet peeves with both systems that might help inform your decision. (Example: The G3X Touch has a checklist page that the TXi lacks, while the GTN 750 has a checklist page but it's not as good as the G3X Touch.)

Interesting. Once I finish my latest version of checklists for my plane, I plan to put them on the GTN, in ForeFlight, and in Goose to see which I like best. What does the G3X Touch do for checklists that the GTN doesn't?

 

[iamtheari]

Interesting. Once I finish my latest version of checklists for my plane, I plan to put them on the GTN, in ForeFlight, and in Goose to see which I like best. What does the G3X Touch do for checklists that the GTN doesn't?

I'll have to take some pictures or make a video to show it in practice. But basically the G3X Touch shows more and longer lines without scrolling and makes it much easier to jump to another checklist compared with the GTN. The sad irony here is that the G3X plane is much simpler, so it was in the more complicated plane (multi-engine, retractable gear, retractable landing lights, two different flaps speeds) that I had to simplify checklists to 5 lines wherever possible to make them efficient to use in the GTN. It did make for a good thought exercise: "What are the top five killers in this phase of flight?"

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'll have to take some pictures or make a video to show it in practice. But basically the G3X Touch shows more and longer lines without scrolling and makes it much easier to jump to another checklist compared with the GTN. The sad irony here is that the G3X plane is much simpler, so it was in the more complicated plane (multi-engine, retractable gear, retractable landing lights, two different flaps speeds) that I had to simplify checklists to 5 lines wherever possible to make them efficient to use in the GTN. It did make for a good thought exercise: "What are the top five killers in this phase of flight?"

Wait. Don't you have a 750 in that plane? Only five lines???

 

[iamtheari]

Wait. Don't you have a 750 in that plane? Only five lines???

The 750 Xi will show 6 lines at a time, which includes the "next checklist" button. So if you have more than 5 lines in a list, you have to scroll. I found it was less annoying to just trim down to 5 lines than to have 6 and scroll to the next list button. Some lists ended up being longer, but I did my absolute best to get down to 5 lines for anything I needed to use in flight.

Another mixed blessing of the G3X checklist over the GTN is that the G3X comes on with the master while the GTN waits for avionics master, so the G3X plane has in-panel checklists available to back up flows earlier.

 

[N747JB]

I just did a small upgrade to our 182Q, 2 275’s and a GFC 500. I don’t have electric trim, so it has to be manually trimmed if it’s out of trim. I kept the KX 155, we seldom use it, as we have a 530 as the number 1. When the shop was finishing up they discovered the 155 won’t transmit.
I would suggest checking with a couple shops, I was surprised by the pricing differences.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The 750 Xi will show 6 lines at a time, which includes the "next checklist" button. So if you have more than 5 lines in a list, you have to scroll. I found it was less annoying to just trim down to 5 lines than to have 6 and scroll to the next list button. Some lists ended up being longer, but I did my absolute best to get down to 5 lines for anything I needed to use in flight.

Another mixed blessing of the G3X checklist over the GTN is that the G3X comes on with the master while the GTN waits for avionics master, so the G3X plane has in-panel checklists available to back up flows earlier.

Oh jeez. This is super dumb:


I get it, they've decided there's a minimum button size with the touchscreen, but those checkboxes are stupidly large. They'd have done better to have another line at the bottom with check/skip/previous buttons, which would allow 3-4 times as many checklist items per screen.